Removing ourselves from catastrophe's maddening din can remind us of what it is to be alive—and perhaps better, help us remember those we have lost. (Nicholas A. Tonelli / Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons)

Web Only /
Features » April 19, 2013

A Moment of Silence for Boston

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

With the attack occurring on the day our taxes are due, they should remind a tax-hostile country of the value of public investment—in this case, in first responders who miraculously limited the casualties. They should also generate a sense of sympathy for those in places like Iraq and Syria who face terrorism-related carnage every day.

Can you hear yourself think? Can you manage more than bursts of confusion and anger? Can you feel your own humanity anymore? I'll admit it—I've had trouble this week, too. After an explosion like the one in Boston, it is indeed hard to hear one's own internal monologue, much less meditate on such horrific events. Polluting that sacred quiet of the mind is both the haunting boom of the bombs themselves and even worse, the noisy coda that we've become so accustomed to.

Sensory overload, of course, is the deafening effect of the Catastrophe Aftermath—one of the last unifying and consistent rituals in our atomized nation. Yes, regardless of whether the tragedy is a school shooting or a terrorist attack, the epilogues of these now-constant mass casualty events have become prepackaged productions that seem less like reality than scripted television dramas.

You know how it goes. Cable outlets blare breaking news chyrons. Twitter explodes with declarations that we are “all from (insert city name) today.” Websites post videos of viscera and other disaster porn. Pundits wildly speculate about perpetrators. The president promises justice. Law enforcement press conferences review body counts. Municipal officials insist the community will “stand united.” Funerals commence. A media icon says something outrageous. Other media carnival barkers then react to the bombast. Ultimately, the whole episode becomes another excuse to limit civil liberties and is forgotten by all but those personally affected.

In submitting to this automated formula, a screen-addicted nation has created a distracting defense mechanism—one that further dehumanizes events, which are already, by definition, an assault on our humanity. In the process, we make it more difficult to muster the soul's ability—and, perhaps, desire—for genuine reflection.

At this point in a column published during the official Catastrophe Aftermath, a writer is supposed to authoritatively offer solutions. But I have none. And you know what? That's OK because it is entirely human to lack answers right now. All I can offer up are thoughts that shouldn't be drowned out by the noise.

One is about context. The images from Boston are not merely of mayhem and heroism. With the attack occurring on the day our taxes are due, they should remind a tax-hostile country of the value of public investment—in this case, in first responders who miraculously limited the casualties. They should also generate a sense of sympathy for those in places like Iraq and Syria who face terrorism-related carnage every day.

Another thought is about fear. At one level, it is appropriate. With our country's wars increasing the possibility of retributive blowback, with the Department of Homeland Security recognizing the threat of domestic anti-government terrorism, and with a heavily armed society not addressing its mental health crisis, we should (unfortunately) expect periodic massacres. But at another level, fear shouldn't consume us—after all, terrorism is still on the decline worldwide.

Still another thought is about people. The Boston bomber reminds us of the cliche that people suck. But the many who ran toward the blast to save lives remind us that most people do not suck.

One final thought: I arrived at these not-so-profound revelations only when I shut off the screen and opted for introspection instead of the false comfort of flashing pixels. I did this because, as security expert Bruce Schneier, suggests, terrorism “is a crime against the mind”—and therefore one way to combat it is to immerse the mind in a bit of silence. Doing so denies the terrorists their desired glory, allows for the consideration of unanswerable questions and, thus, lets one remember what it means to be truly alive.

That may be the best—if not the only—way to honor the dead and find meaning in such a senseless atrocity.

David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a staff writer at PandoDaily and a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, co-hosts "The Rundown" on AM630 KHOW in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

It's usually the most powerful that does the most atrocities. Human nature is pretty much the same no matter you go. Money is pretty much always the motive. Power, control, and all the means for their accomplishment, has money as the primary goal. It's more evolution over time than it is conspiracy. Who is and has been the most powerful, at least since the end of World War II? That's your answer!

Posted by todawgs on 2013-05-03 15:52:10

I often ask persons like yourself to visualize what the world might be like today had the U.S. not exercised the power and influence that it has in the past. It was like a big modern day Switzerland -- pacifist, limited military, no ability to change the course of history whatsoever.

Sounds nice, right? But the only problem is that across the seas there was 3 or 4 regimes and their accompanying murderous ideologies vying for world dominance. It’s hard to know which of these would have ended up on top, or if it would have been some sort of ‘alliance of evil’, but it’s hard to imagine all these dark forces being somehow defeated w/o the projection of power by the U.S. military.

Now consider the numbers: 150 million people dead at the hands of their own communist governments since 1918, and this doesn’t even count war deaths. Naziism killed 21 million. Imperial Japan millions more. If these powers had not been stopped, this killing mentality presumably would have continued. And w/o the U.S., it’s doubtful they would have been, despite the great efforts of Great Britain and others.

Now you want to focus on some undefined ‘indirect’ death supposedly caused by our CIA intervention, and presume that it has always been malevolent. I wouldn’t be so sure. I suspect, and know in many cases, that their influencing of certain outcomes in other countries’ affairs has been a continuation, a mopping up if you will, of our more explicit military actions mainly in WWII. So, instead of that being your killing fields, what if it was actually a net positive in terms of death numbers?

Posted by Kay on 2013-05-03 11:29:13

Your the one who is way off in la-la-land with your figures! Probably, just way off in la-la-land, period. You are also not taking into account all the people the U.S. has killed indirectly through the dictators they have installed in many many many countries since the late 40's through the CIA. These Dictators not only are anti-democratic but extremely oppressive. They have killed millions of people.over many decades. Don't forget the hundreds-of-thousands of people, innocent civilians, that die indirectly every year, through extreme economic sanctions. You ever read , a book, or anything besides bubble-gum wrappers? Your statistics are totally inaccurate, you can't read, and judging from your reply, you can't compose anything sensible, logical, or accurate. From the quality of your reply I'm sensing that you are: a socialized, indoctrinated, brainwashed, never-read-a-book, don't-have-an-original-thought, sitcom-fake-laughter-watching, cheese-eating, self-indulgent, moron!

Posted by todawgs on 2013-04-28 13:54:27

Let’s see. Hitler killed upwards of 21 million people. Stalin killed 60 million. China 86 million. And you’re endeavoring to compare this kind of deliberate genocide to the relative handful killed by the U.S. military? Even in Iraq, the vast majority of death came at the hands of Muslims against other Muslims.

Take a math class, I guess. And then history. In the mean time google “powerkills”. Hopefully you'll start to appreciate just WHAT KIND of power kills. And just what distinguishes the brand of power that has cruelly and gleefully killed hundreds of millions throughout history from the nature of the United States whose benevolent power has actually prevented and discouraged the former. Yes, if not for America, that red river would be continuing to flow. And flow. And flow.

Posted by Kay on 2013-04-27 20:09:34

The American people have been 'selected and earmarked' to be inundated with the Boston Bombings. What about the deaths that occur in every other country in the world, that kills more people every few years than Hitler and Stalin combined, ever did , in the unjust and immoral wars, for the sole purpose(s) of manking money for the Bankers, that the 'real' terroists, the U.S. Government instigates?

Posted by todawgs on 2013-04-27 12:25:57

Instead of expressing gladness that the Muslim murderers have been identified and killed/captured before any more were killed or hurt, David attempts this article to distract from his disappointment that it wasn't carried out by some white tea partier fan of Rush Limbaugh.

If that had been the case, are we really to believe he'd be turning off his 'screens'? No, he'd be all a-twitter and his keyboard would be on the verge of melting.